16 November 2015 5:04 PM

Keep Thinking. Thinking is Acting, at least as Much as Shooting is Acting

First, there were all the historically ignorant people ( but, even so, righteously passionate about the supposed lessons of a past they don’t know about or understand). They yesterday compared me with Neville Chamberlain, presumably because I didn’t urge the immediate bombing of someone or something.

Then there were all the ones whose response to my call to ‘Think!’ responded, ‘but he does not say what we should *do*’.

To the first group I have little to say except ‘learn some real history’ and ‘World War Two is not necessarily the only form in which crises come’. Islamic terrorism is not the Third Reich, Britain now is a tiny, insignificant country compared with what she was then, and you are not Winston Churchill. As it happens, such people, being the victims of propaganda and conventional wisdom, would almost certainly have been keen supporters of Neville Chamberlain’s appeasement policy at the time. Most were.

To the second group, may I introduce the radical idea that thought is an action? May I suggest that seeking the truth about an event, and considering its implications and meaning, are at least as effective, and very probably much more so, than a televised air strike on a bit of desert, or a round-up of suspects? Confronted with a mechanical problem, we will generally trust the skilled, calm man with the precise tools, and mistrust the angry man in a hurry, with a hammer, even if he acts more quickly. It is the same here.

Of course I could use this event as a pretext to reinforce my long-held opinion that immigration to Europe should be restricted. But in truth I think the arguments for such restrictions are perfectly good already, and needn’t rely on this horror to strengthen them. What’s more, I disapprove of others using crises as a pretext to push demands they have long sought anyway. So I really oughtn’t to do it myself.

Also, I’d be grateful if those who go on about the alleged ‘failures’ of the ‘security’ services can explain how they would have made such services clairvoyant. Outside Science Fiction and Hollywood, it is extremely difficult to evaluate what must be hundreds if not thousands of potential suspects, warnings and tip-offs. This difficulty won’t cease if more spooks are hired, or more surveillance is imposed. People still have to make judgements on very partial knowledge, and often they will get them wrong. The terrorist, who has almost limitless defenceless targets once he adopts the morals of the murderer, will almost always get through. There are very few instances (Guy Fawkes being one) of serious terror plots being uncovered in time.

I’m still struck by how little we yet know about the perpetrators of the November 13 massacres. Some appear to be (as any observer of these things would expect) petty criminal low-lifes of the sort who often gravitate to highly-disciplined fanaticism. One has already been liked with cannabis use in the French press, as, once again, I would expect.

But on this occasion, much more so than in the Charlie Hebdo outrages, there is strong evidence of a guiding hand.

This is not because of the guns. Guns, alas, may be easily obtained by criminals in France. I note the lack of calls for gun control in France, not least because there is severe gun control there already, and it has had precisely no effect on the ability of such people to obtain AK-47s and plenty of ammunition to put in them. Some acknowledgement of the implications of this, by those who demand ‘gun control’ in the US after every massacre, would be interesting, if unexpected. You can see why they don’t say much.

It is because of the suicide belts. These are very difficult to make, and require a great deal of skill, and discipline, and some pretty tight organisation. And it is also because of the clearly co-ordinated and widespread nature of the actual attacks, in an area they had clearly scouted and researched with a particular and very nasty purpose in mind. They knew exactly which part of French society they wanted to scare the most. And scare them they did. A brief TV film of a group of mourners in a Paris street, suddenly fleeing in fear when a loud noise is heard, is one of the saddest parts of this story. I personally would hesitate before passing judgement on them. The real possibility of being mown down by fanatics in the street without warning is a potent fear.

If the French authorities actually know that this outrage was planned in Syria or Iraq, then I would be very interested to know how they know.

As I have said before, all Muslim terror attacks used to be said to have ‘all the hallmarks of Al Qaeda’, for years and years. These ‘hallmarks’ were that they were terrorist attacks committed by Islamists, which always seemed a bit circular to me. The claim meant nothing. Now ‘Al Qaeda’, never in fact anything like as co-ordinated or centralised as claimed, has sunk into obscurity and disuse, and we all talk about IS instead. How much do modern claims that IS is behind such actions mean? I do not know.

In fact, I still know so little about this crime that I am still thinking about it, and about what we should do about it.

Share this article:

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Elaine | 22 November 2015 at 03:41 AM :
*** ... this "Non-extremist" tent (funny that Al-Qaeda is now considered "non-extremist in this fight) Anyhow as long as they are willing to adhere to the cease fire they would be part of these initial negotiations. ***

So after umpteen years of massive (but corporately profitable) killing and destruction in Iraq and Afghanistan -- ^allegedly^ wars to eradicate an ^absolutely evil^ organisation called Al-Qaeda -- Neocon-NATO now decides that A-Q and its affiliates are so not-extreme as to be suitable for inclusion in their proposed governance of Syria....
What a sadistic farce, delivered by the corrupt perverts who rule!

*** After the cease fire, the Free Syrian Army gets to run its own territory because the Syrian government knows that it can't. ***

Dismemberment of Syria into chunks that could subsequently disposed of, stolen and exploited was always the intention of the Neocons and their PNAC....
If these allegedly "peace" proposals were imposed, how soon would it be before the Neocon-NATO imperium set up a military base in territory grabbed by that CIA puppet group of agents, shipped-in terrorists, cannibals, mercenaries and gangsters?

@ Paul P
I just read some hopeful news. It was a piece by David Ignatius who writes for the Washington Post called "A Surprise in Syria's Civil War that could be bad news for the Islamic State"

I had heard recently that cease-fire negotiations were underway and in this piece he outlined some of the specific intentions.. The first was to call a truce between the Assad government and the Al-Qaeda affiliate there. The next test would be whether Ahrar al-Sham, a group backed by Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Qatar, is included in the truce. They are an Islamist group but both Assad and the United States are willing to allow them into this "Non-extremist" tent (funny that Al-Qaeda is now considered "non-extremist in this fight) Anyhow as long as they are willing to adhere to the cease fire they would be part of these initial negotiations.

After the cease fire, the Free Syrian Army gets to run its own territory because the Syrian government knows that it can't.
Then on the way to a national truce there would have to local cease fires.

They've also discussed ways to get Hezbollah and Iraqi Shiite militias out of Syria which it is said that the Iranians and Syrians are willing to consider.

The next step would be a political transition. And this is what I thought was the interesting part., which I'll quote:

"To finesse this transition, diplomats favor a plan to increase the power of parliament — and also regional governments in a more federal Syria — and a corresponding diminution of the president’s power. That might make it easier for the opposition to swallow Assad’s continuation in power during the transition."

Complicated huh?
Well, the reason I find that last part interesting is that Assad wouldn't be in direct rule of *all* of Syria again.

Paul P | 20 November 2015 at 07:05 PM :
*** The violence erupted when police fired upon the protesters. This was precedent enough, in my view, for the 'rebels' to depose Yanukovych forcibly. ***

Sniper fire (which also killed policemen) from a building controlled by an armed militia -- ie. terrorists -- massively sponsored by the US State Department / CIA, and allied with Chechen jihadists.
But never mind -- if it suits NATO and the PNAC, any excuse will do.

In David Michells brilliant novel Cloud Atlas one of the villains has as his motto the phrase "The weak are meat, the strong do eat".It has a cerain ring to it and I am suprised it does not catch on.I thought that the author had invented it only to discover it is an old Japanese proverb.Regarding our present terrorist difficulties just repeat "the weak are meat ,the strong do eat".Pretty good guide to world politics and economics too.

"I agree with you, which makes it even more mystifying to me than it did at the time why you took such a diametriclly opposite position over the violent rioters who ousted the legitimate president of Ukraine."

If in Ukraine at the time a murderous civil war had been underway and the 'rebels' been an unknown quantity, the sort of unknown quantity propelled to disastrous rule in Libya, I might have found in favour of Yanukovych on grounds of stability. As it was, the Ukrainian 'rebels' were to all intents representing a majority of the population who wanted to depose Yanukovych before he handed Ukraine to the Russians in defiance of a mandate to proceed with closer ties with the EU. The violence erupted when police fired upon the protesters. This was precedent enough, in my view, for the 'rebels' to depose Yanukovych forcibly.

You can toy all you like with the word 'legitimate' in the interests of your own case, that of maintaining Yanukovych in power, and I'm not suggesting the 'rebels' were squeaky-clean legal or am I endorsing any extremes to which they may have reverted. But circumstances can make a moral case where the legal wordage fails to deliver justice. Had the Germans risen up and violently deposed the democratically elected Hitler and the Nazi regime would you have made the word 'legitimate' a legal cause célèbre enough to demand Hitler's return to power?

Paul P. writes:
"Nevertheless Assad is the sitting president and controls the organs of state and the military forces of the state. All others are rebellious or revolutionary factions attempting to take over the state. The definition of instability would be any of these factions succeeding in taking over the state. Thus Assad must be seen as a stabilising influence."

I agree with you, which makes it even more mystifying to me than it did at the time why you took such a diametriclly opposite position over the violent rioters who ousted the legitimate president of Ukraine.

"I really am just curious to know how you think he could now be, after all that has happened, a stabilizing dictator."

Well let us say Assad was a stabilising factor before the events of the so-called Arab Spring had swept across the Middle East. Rebellion under the auspices of the 'Spring' became civil war after Assad's violent crackdowns. Since then the situation has become vey complex with other powers, factions and militant groups stepping in on one side or the other. Had Assad been more in lockstep with the Middle Eastern zeitgeist and seen the force of history as it was being screened before his eyes, then ISIL might already have come to grief at the hands of rebels allied with Assad. A stupid man. A very stupid man.

The rule of the Alawites in a predominantly Sunni state does seem out of balance, and is a legacy of French rule over Syria. Nevertheless Assad is the sitting president and controls the organs of state and the military forces of the state. All others are rebellious or revolutionary factions attempting to take over the state. The definition of instability would be any of these factions succeeding in taking over the state. Thus Assad must be seen as a stabilising influence.

The civil war is of course playing into the hands of ISIL. All they need do is wait for Assad to be overthrown and walk in, sweeping aside the rebels with a ruthlessness and cruelty which will make the Assad regime seem gratuitously benign. Thus Assad must be maintained in power until ISIL is swept out of the picture. The compromises which will need to be forged to achieve this speak despairingly, and I'm afraid hopelessly, to the tale of the scorpion and the frog. These people would sooner stand the ground of their tribal instincts and loyalties and go down than set aside the centuries of tribal division and live. My money is not on the frog.

Colm J , that is interesting about the russian mr Lavrov , He has always impressed me , He is a class act , runs rings round his opposite numbers.
interesting to , the long lines of tankers being bombed by russian aircraft , lends some credibility to his claims .
The west superior tech has missed these vehicles.
How is ISIS selling oil ?

It's a fairly straightforward principle. A society which plays host to groups who do not subscribe to the values of that society and who, rightly or wrongly, have feelings of grievance against that society... is a society which must either embrace the kinds of self discipline demonstrated by the ancient Spartans... or continually suffer the kinds of outrage recently experienced in Paris. Such a situation can also be "resolved/controlled" through the development of a state along the lines of Soviet Russia in the days of Stalin... or Nazi Germany in the days of Adolf Hitler.

It is not a "call to arms"... and I make it very clear that none of us would feel comfortable with armed neighbours... insofar as the kinds of self discipline which would make the widespread ownership of lethal force useful rather than disastrous are nowhere evident in our society at this time.

There is also the perspective that even were people to voluntarily and enthusiastically embrace the kind of self discipline which made such a circumstance possible... our society would have transformed itself from the lovable, bungling, haphazard and self indulent mess that it is today... anyway. In short, we are "stuffed"... and as several of those contributors I most enjoy have already said... "Good bye western civilisation !".

It serves no purpose... but if you want to blame anyone... lay the blame fairly and squarely at the feet of those hopeless prats masquerading as politicians during the past four/five decades... and all the useful idiots who have promoted the cause of "the great big melting pot". Nowt wrong with melting pots... but they tend not to be very comfortable places if you want to enjoy a quiet life.

The very fact that ISIS appear determined to provoke further western military intervention in Syria should be enough reason to convince even the most stupid politician that bombing Syria is precisely the WRONG thing to do.

I would be interested to know what Martin thought the effects of cannabis on the brain are? Does he really believe that there are no long term effects? ‘It is also a monumental slur on the millions of innocent cannabis users who feel no compulsion to murder innocents.’ This is a ridiculously overblown statement of self-victimhood. If you think Peter is wrong why do you not either ignore him, or engage in debate with him to prove he is wrong. If you are so confident in your beliefs then why would it bother you, or other cannabis users, that he argues that we need to investigate and research the potential consequences of cannabis use. If you were confident it does no harm then such an investigation would confirm this. Is there really no evidence, as you say, that cannabis has mind-altering side effects? Even though several recent studies have found, for example, that users of skunk are five times more likely to suffer psychosis than those who never touch it.

Personally I do not see why people cannot publicly examine the causes of why such tragedies occur. But I think it is right to wait and think, give time for the dust to settle, before jumping to conclusions.

"I'm not sure what your definition of a "troublemaker" is, but I have a hunch that for you Ghaddafi and Saddam Hussein fit the bill."
Colm J

I think your comparisons with those two "troublemakers" fails. Ghaddafi, just prior to his toppling, was not destabilizing the surrounding region. Nor was Saddam Hussein. The civil war in Syria which was started by Bashar Al-Assad's government has and continues to destabilize the region; not because he intended that to be the case but because of the chain of events that have since followed due to allegiances on both sides.
In addition to those allegiances, another complicating factor is Turkey and their issues with the Kurds. Prior to the civil war they had established a cease fire with the Turkish government. I don't know if that's in a complete shambles yet, but it is seriously threatened.

It is a multi-dimensional war that started because of Assad. He is the root cause. ISIS regrouped and went to fight *his* government. I don't know if you've seen or heard of the comic drawn by an Iranian cartoonist.(I'm sorry I can't find it right now, but I could search for it) The message he was trying to convey was that Assad intentionally allowed ISIS to grow so that the supporters of his more moderate opposition (namely Western countries) would think that he was the lesser of two evils. And maybe he would be, but at the same time, if he's intentionally targeted the Sunni population, which makes up the majority of the population, it doesn't seem very realistic to think that he could rule over them again. Maybe if a compromise had been reached in the beginning that would have been possible.

BBC news late tonight (Wednesday) was rather informative ... though not, perhaps, in the way that was intended.
Corbyn very reasonably suggested in parliament that it would make sense to hunt down the funders, facilitators and armers of IS -- including banks, corporates, agencies and countries.
Cameron's reaction did not seem to be the enthusiastic agreement which one would expect from a genuine opponent of IS and its sponsors ... he mumbled a dismissive response while looking really furious -- rattled and distinctly off-colour, as he usually goes when nailed.
In the conclusion of its report on that exchange, BBC political commentary turned into what could only be described as a blatant Tory/Blairite propaganda attack on the present Labour leadership.
But isn't the BBC supposed to remain neutral in UK politics?
And wouldn't the BBC be better serving the public interest by impartially investigating and reporting the IS associations or linkages to which Corbyn alluded?

"By what means or mechanism of petition or redress do they have their concerns reflected in their governance?"
Paul P

I don't know how it might work. You're not corresponding with a diplomat, but I would imagine there would have to be a cease fire that held for a significant period of time and then some type of transitional government put in place, until such time that the people had the opportunity to decide. I was actually only responding to the hypothetical question of self-determination, which I found a bit ironic since the general consensus among this crowd was that the Ukrainians had no such right. Russia's "sphere of influence" trumped any right to self-determination; I guess for now and forever.

"Assad is a murderous villain, but is a stabilising dictator."

I really am just curious to know how you think he could now be, after all that has happened, a stabilizing dictator. He has specifically targeted the Sunni population which makes up the majority of Syrians. How will he stabilize them? How could he ever rule them again? It just doesn't seem very realistic to me.

Interesting to hear Lord Richards of Herstmonceux, former Chief of Defence Staff, on the Today programme this morning (just after 8.10am). His opinion is that attacking Assad is a misguided approach to solving the Syrian war. A month or two ago, I think Peter was writing about some other high-ranking military person who thought the same, so I thought I'd mention it again here. It's always seemed fairly obvious to me that Assad is part of the solution, at least in the medium-term, not part of the problem, to bring stability and peace. I can't decide if the US and Cameron's constant vilifying of Assad and praise for the myriad of 'moderate' opposition groups is stupidity or calculated. Another point: in my reading about Islam one really strong thing struck me, when it comes to Islamists and their aims - undermining and removing authoritarian leaders (Assad, Gaddafi, etc) is precisely what Islamists want, quite literally what they build into their political and military strategy. Bombing Libya, for example, played straight into their hands. They really couldn't ask for more.

Amanda Rudd, Conservative MP for Energy and climate change, has certainly summed her party up when she stated this government is going to be the Greenest ever judging on its total lack of common sense regarding (coal fired power stations, war mongering, immigration europe, etc) she won't get any disagreement here.

I didn't say cannabis was the cause. I do say that if you look behind the headlines sometimes of terrorism, brutal killing, a pattern of cannabis, drug use is often apparent.
It also made the point in the report on the drug paraphernalia in the DM yesterday that, often cocaine and heroine is taken by the perpetrators just before they go on attack. Making bombs or helping to psyche themselves who knows, a bit of each maybe? Time will tell.
It's about looking at the wider picture, patterns, behaviour, backgrounds.
thinking outside the box. Not always going for the obvious.
It's about not being lazy and complacent and dismissive. Building a profile.
There's been enough attacks, after the usual reporting where it's use has come to the fore.

Why do the BBC and others keep referring to the man suspected of organising a group of murderers who care little for their own lives to kill almost anyone they come across in Paris as a 'mastermind'? Is it part of the Blarite plan to create a Bond style nemesis?

"And if the Syrian people decided against Assad how will you convince the Iranians to let it go?"

How would we know if the Syrian people had decided against Assad? Several hundred thousand of them have voted with their feet, that we do know, but how otherwise would we know? And what if a majority of the remainder have decided against Assad? By what means or mechanism of petition or redress do they have their concerns reflected in their governance?

This is a conundrum of appalling moral tensions. Assad is a murderous villain, but is a stabilising dictator. His opponents are murderous villains whose aim is the establishment of a theocratic fascism. Hovering over the carnage-in-progress are superpowers who want to rule the world. I suppose we should be grateful that Chinese carriers are not also in the Gulf and the Med. Fluttering around their ankles are the European minions egging on or not in their own interests. If this were a game of chess I would resign and hope that tomorrow the board would be reset and the good could once again be seen clearly ranked against the bad.

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear on this weblog until the moderator has approved them. They must not exceed 500 words. Web links cannot be accepted, and may mean your whole comment is not published.